Exhibit A: Why Liberals Lose So Much

Last weekend, women marked the one-year anniversary of their large, successful march in Washington with smaller marches around the country. The timing was especially good, since we appear to be at the start of a new national dialogue seeking to address the appalling ways men have treated women for far too long.

But not all women were happy with last weekend’s events and the Philadelphia Inquirer gave one of them an op-ed column to explain her dissatisfaction.

Essentially, her argument is that…well, no, let’s use some of her own words. (You can find the entire column here.)

First there’s the title of her column:

I’m a queer Latinx woman. Philly’s Women’s March didn’t represent me this year

Not a great start from The Curmudgeon’s perspective: he thought “Latinx” might be a typo.

She explained the heart of her problem:

I didn’t march on Saturday because, as a queer Latinx person, I’m exhausted in my relationships with white women and allies.

Exhausted, she is.

And then this mind-boggling, conversation-stopping, willingness-to-engage-destroying elaboration:

I identify as Latinx, which is the gender-neutral alternative to Latino, Latina and even Latin@. It’s part of a “linguistic revolution” that aims to move beyond gender binaries and is inclusive of the intersecting identities of Latin American descendants. In addition to men and women from all racial backgrounds, Latinx also makes room for people who are trans, queer, agender, non-binary, gender non-conforming or gender fluid.

Watch out, folks, for the traffic at that identities intersection, whatever the hell that means, and The Curmudgeon leaves it to you to figure out gender fluidity. As he read the column, this was the point at which his head started to hurt.

And next, on to one of the really important issues: protest fashions.

In the days leading up to the march, conversations erupted in Philadelphia about the organizing committee’s official stance on whether pink pussyhats were truly inclusive, since not all women identify with them. One of the organizers reacted by saying she did not want to get “caught up in these little conversations about a damn hat.” This response felt apathetic and dismissive of these very real concerns.

Putting aside for a moment The Curmudgeon’s skepticism about erupting conversations, let him offer this observation: way to focus on what really matters, Latinx. After all, not ALL women identify with the hats and it’s certainly not possible to proceed absent unanimity, is it?

Which leads to an obvious question: do ALL women identify with ANYTHING?

Do people of ANY group ever ALL identify with anything?

And then, a broader statement:

A march for women should center on and uplift all women, including trans women of color. Organizers should ensure that there is equitable representation, beyond visibility onstage, with the intention to represent even the most marginalized communities. Queer and trans women of color must be part of the vision, strategy and decision making. A march for women should actively question the levels of privilege and power that exist in our society and strive to overcome those issues.

Of course, she’s decided that SHE gets to decide what the march should center on – and she demands that it uplift ALL women.

Her concerns probably have some degree of legitimacy but she’s failing to see the bigger picture: the value of the attention a major event like the march brings to women’s issues. If nothing else, it earned her sour grapes commentary’s way into one of the highest-circulation newspapers in the country.

But no, she’d rather complain that a single event fails – in her opinion, of course – to encompass the needs of every single sub-group within the sub-group instead of looking for separate opportunities to pursue the interests of those with whom she identifies.

Including those gender fluids.

And that, friends, is why liberals lose so damn much: because their selfish, foolish demand for ideological purity destroys practically everything they touch.

In contrast, look at how the religious right has given Trump a pass on having an affair with a porn actress while his wife was pregnant and then paying her to be quiet about it. They get it: as long as he’s doing their bidding in the religious and culture wars they don’t care about this porn star nonsense. They have goals, and if he’s still helping them achieve those goals without breaking the law then they’re perfectly willing to look the other way.